Children just must not go hungry

Originally posted by @josephw
Don't be absurd. Half the people in office are people like you put their by people like you. 😉

They're all liars left and right. Those in office are a reflection of a corrupt culture. As goes the heart of the people so goes the nation.

Besides, the 2% aren't in office anyway. Except a few, and they buy their way in. They're the ones that have been ba ...[text shortened]... nd they don't give a rat's as about any of us. After all it's the devil's world don't you know?!

No matter D or R they are all multimillionaires.

https://ballotpedia.org/Net_worth_of_United_States_Senators_and_Representatives

Originally posted by @rajk999
God is interested in good and righteous people.
God is interested in eagles, not the parrots.

Read the parable of the Sower and the Seed.
Talkers and boasters like you and your type will be cast into the lake of fire.

And we will both answer to God.

You're biblically ignorant. God is interested in everyone alike.

Except Pharisees like you.

Originally posted by @josephw
You'll answer to God for that.

You really should refrain from threatening people you disagree on the internet, with your terrorist version of god. It's not impressive or in the slightest bit scary.

Originally posted by @suzianne
If you have to ask this, clearly you have zero idea what's going on in America and the basic moral difference between the two major political parties.

Are you seriously of he mind that left wing politicians are somehow more moral because they are left wing?

Originally posted by @fmf
What role (and moral obligation) do you think the government has in tackling poverty (aside from, in addition to, in cooperation with charitable non-governmental organisations)?

What role you ask?

I'll try to answer this seriously. The government's role is to seize as much of the common man's money as it can and waste it on meaningless, hollow and otherwise useless programs.

At the end of the day 1 in 5 children will go to bed hungry. Even in a nation as wealthy as America. Politicians break more promises than they make, if you can imagine that!

I want the government to stay away from me and mine. I pay my taxes responsibly, but the government spends it wastefully. More government = less freedom. More freedom = less government.

Originally posted by @suzianne
My answer stands. The only reason this thread exists is for you to keep beating your meaningless anti-Christian drum. You don't care about "moral dimensions". Get real.

One day you may actually enter into the debate instead of peddling this persistent anti-discussion anti disagreeing mantra.

Originally posted by @josephw
I pay my taxes responsibly, but the government spends it wastefully.

What do you think would be a morally sound way for the government to spend your taxes in its efforts to tackle poverty?

Originally posted by @josephw
At the end of the day 1 in 5 children will go to bed hungry. Even in a nation as wealthy as America. Politicians break more promises than they make, if you can imagine that!

What promises do you think politicians should* make - and keep - in addressing the fact that '1 in 5 children go to bed hungry' every day?

* by "should", I mean morally speaking, what would constitute the right policy in tackling child hunger?

Originally posted by @josephw
The government's role is to seize as much of the common man's money as it can and waste it on meaningless, hollow and otherwise useless programs.

What kinds of government programmes would be, from you moral perspective, would be meaningful, substantial and useful regarding poverty [and other issues touched upon by the OP]?

Originally posted by @fmf
OK, if I've used the word "rationalization" incorrectly, fair enough I withdraw it.

[b]Seems you've bought into many of the rationalizations that are given for not getting it done.

I don't think I have bought into anything. I am interested in discussing the moral mechanics of "getting it done".[/b]

OK, if I've used the word "rationalization" incorrectly, fair enough I withdraw it.

The point wasn't for you to "withdraw it". The point was for you to understand what I had written.

I don't think I have bought into anything. I am interested in discussing the moral mechanics of "getting it done"

That's not surprising. Reread the quote from Wiki.

The "moral mechanics of getting it done" are really simple. They are only complicated for those who have bought into many of the rationalizations that are given for not getting it done.

Underlying greed is what keeps it from getting done. If you need examples of the rationalizations for not getting it done, josephw provided a few:

The government's role is to seize as much of the common man's money as it can and waste it on meaningless, hollow and otherwise useless programs.

At the end of the day 1 in 5 children will go to bed hungry. Even in a nation as wealthy as America. Politicians break more promises than they make, if you can imagine that!

I want the government to stay away from me and mine. I pay my taxes responsibly, but the government spends it wastefully. More government = less freedom. More freedom = less government.

Originally posted by @fmf
Yes. Of course, getting it done is clearly complicated. Identifying a cause as being "greed" is simple. Are you willing to discuss the moral dimension of how to go about providing those who need help with food, shelter, medical care? This thread is not about whether or not the US has the resources to help who need help with food, shelter, medical care. It's about the moral nuts and bolts of doing it.

Well, so much for pitching a thought experiment.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
The "moral mechanics of getting it done" are really simple.

Feel free to discuss them. It's the thread topic.

Originally posted by @fmf
Feel free to discuss them. It's the thread topic.

If you'd actually take the time to understand what other people write, we might be able to have an intelligent discussion. Instead it seems that all you're willing to do is pick out a sentence or two out of context and comment or ask a question whilst all the while ignoring what's being said in the larger context.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
If you'd actually take the time to understand what other people write, we might be able to have an intelligent discussion. Instead it seems that all you're willing to do is pick out a sentence or two out of context and comment or ask a question whilst all the while ignoring what's being said in the larger context.

I am not really interested in anything you have to say that isn't a discussion of the moral nuts and bolts of 'getting it done'.

Originally posted by @fmf
I am not really interested in anything you have to say that isn't a discussion of the moral nuts and bolts of 'getting it done'.

Was that your intent when you wrote the following in your OP?

"What are the spiritual, moral, or philosophical dimensions to the debate about the extent to which it is the responsibility of a nation's legally established government to intervene to ensure that "children just must not go hungry" and take action on other similar assertions in Johnson's inaugural address? "

If it was, you really missed the mark there.